http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3705409.stm
His body was found Saturday.
Can’t find a smiley with his throat being cut …
What the heck does the enemy’s viscosity have to do with anything?
False. You have no personal knowledge of what they may have been imprisoned for, and just yesterday, the ICRC reluctantly released a report (they normally prefer to go through channels, but felt that in this case it required public disclosure) that 70-90% of the persons incarcerated in Abu Ghraib were imprisoned by mistake. Cite.
How can it be the same people if the people you are talking about have been imprisoned since sometime last year?
Hail Ants, you are not helping anything by posting such disgusting, hateful trash in a debate forum. If you’ve gotta vent, take it to the Pit, why doncha.
Well, let’s not forget…
Clinton got a BLOW JOB!
So let’s get this straight, Sen. You started by saying that you wanted to slaughter “them”, by which you presumably meant Iraqis, for a crime that was committed by a non-Iraqi supported by other non-Iraqis. Your justification for this is that some people want to blame Rumsfield because he ignored the reports of abuse coming from the Red Cross and others for months on end. Just out of curiosity, rev asked you a question. Are you going to anwer it, or are you going to put your moral cowardice on display by turning around running with your tail between your legs?
But is the spirit of compromise, let me suggest this solution: Let’s impeach Presdient Bush, since he’s the one responsible for Zarqawi’s reign of terror anyway.
Where in the heck did this word “viscosity” come from:
Noun 1. unit of viscosity - a unit of measurement for viscosity
unit, unit of measurement - any division of quantity accepted as a standard of measurement or exchange; “the dollar is the United States unit of currency”; “a unit of wheat is a bushel”; “change per unit volume”
poise - a cgs unit of dynamic viscosity equal to one dyne-second per square centimeter; the viscosity of a fluid in which a force of one dyne per square centimeter maintains a velocity of 1 centimeter per second.
? These are cold blooded killers. Many of the the 52 cards and murders are imprisoned there. Just because you don’t like this thread, but accepted the trashing of our military and Rumsfeld in numerous previous threads, why do you want this thread to be now be posted in the BBQ? …
And oddly enough we attack said secular dictator while kissing major fundamentalist ass in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. :smack:
The viscosity crack was made due to a misspelling you made. You mentioned killing a viscous enemy. And as for you cold blooded killers thing… did you even read what ITR wrote in the post before you? The people at fault are the AQ affiliates that killed Berg, not the Iraqi citizens.
Uh … isn’t UBL above Zarqawi … and didn’t Clinton let UBL go at least two times? 9/11 Commisson …
Sorry, but if the shoe fits. IOW these guys are the disgusting hateful trash and I for one am sick & tired of this massive ‘abused prisoners’ guilt trip.
The beheaders talked about the ‘dignity’ of those prisoners, and then they proceed to saw a living man’s head off and cheer. I guess the dignity of an ‘infidel’ is worth just a tad less.
These people are intolerant, murderous, hate-filled, racist pigs. They deserve a little hate thrown their way…
That would be from the poster Senggüm in post #19 of this thread:
Nope. That was one of the lies that was used to pretend that there was a direct link from bin Laden to Hussein. Zurqawi is a free-lance hater who has met members of al Qaida but who does not appear to have ever worked with them.
Clinton did not let Osama get away any times. He did everything within his power to kill bin Laden.
In 1998, [Clinton] authorized an intensive, ongoing campaign to destroy al-Qaida and seize or assassinate bin Laden by signing a secret National Security Decision Directive to that effect. (from here )
CIA incompetence botched the job. Of course, the fact that conservative were more interested in a stain on a blue dress than in protecting the country probably didn’t help much.
By the way, seng, revtim asked you a question about whether you would support a logical extension of the moral philosophy espoused in your first post in this thread. You have now avoided answering that question twice. Will the third time be the charm, or will you maintain your course of moral cowardice?
Nobody disputes that Al Queda are murderous. What the intelligent people in this thread are asking is why you want to respond to Al Queda by punishing people who have no relationship to Al Queda. For instance, would it make sense to respond to a crime committed by Alk Queda by torturing and murdering Hail Ants? Doesn’t Hail Ants have exactly the same number of ties to Al Queda as anyone in the Abu Ghraib prison? (i. e. none) Or is this sort of thinking simply too advanced for you to handle?
So let me get this straight. You know the history of every single person in that prison? You know for an undisputed fact that none of them have even the slightest ties to terrorist activities?
Correction. The Clinton Administration’s CIA botched the job. Why? Because Clinton gutted both the FBI & the CIA and told them to refocus on domestic ‘hate crimes’, and to not deal with ‘unsavory characters’ abroad. IOW don’t do anything that will cause a problem until I finish out my 2 terms. And it worked, with 8 whole months to spare.
What was more likely to have contributed to 9/11, 8 months of GWB or 8 years of BC?
If you would make an effort to tamp down your raging emotions for a moment, you might be able to see that one could quite logically make the same statement about you, based on the content of your OP.
When we - a dozen of us - caught the murderer, blood still on his hands, our disgust and hate for him was matched by our outrage at the pitiful means the law offered for dealing with such a monster. The requirements of justice inflamed us, and without debate we set to work. Minutes later, the evil creature was dead. We were triumphant. We had eliminated a monster, and in doing this had reduced the number of murderers among us from one to twelve.
How we treat our enemies is not a function of what the enemy is. It is a function of what we are.
I know that in America, a person is innocent of a crime until proven guilty. You have no person that any person in that prison was connected to Al Queda. Ergo they are innocent of having connections to Al Queda.
Holy misrepresentation of your opponent’s argument, Batman! Did I say anything about their relationship to terrorists? Let’s see … no I didn’t. I said that they had no relationship to Al Queda. More vile dishonesty on your part.
Well, since you are using quotes there, I assume that you won’t trouble providing a cite … right? After all, I’ve already proved, that Clinton did everything within his power to eliminate Al Queda.
I would have to go with the President who is best friends with Osama’s biggest Saudi ally, and that President, needless to say, is Bush .
I note that like Seng, you’re refusing to answer the question that I asked of you at the end of my last post. Why am I not surprised?
By the way, those of you with IQs higher than your height in feet might be interested in this article:
http://pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-16/108430077760820.xml
Seems that the family of the deceased have a much more level-headed approach to the topic than some. Also has some interesting details abut Berg’s final days that are, curiously enough, ommitted by the mainstream media reports.
I couldn’t agree more. We bring those who inappropriately abuse the enemy to justice.
They saw their living enemy’s heads off.
Oh wait. I guess I’m being a racist for critizing a wonderful Arab tradition (ceremonial decapitation)…
Clinton himself admitted that when offered Bin Laden himself, he passed.
We’re approaching tin-foil hat if you’re actually going to imply that he knew & allowed it to happen. Bin Laden had been kicked out of Saudi Arabia because they wanted (at least partly) to remain our ally.
The Berg families suing of Donald Rumsfeld for imprisoning their son does seem to be slipping through the cracks of the media doesn’t it?
No doubt you have a cite for this one as well, and no doubt there’s a reason why you didn’t post that cite, and no doubt there’s a reason why you still haven’t posted a cite for the quotes you made in the previous post, and nou doubt you’ll be providing both the reasons and the missing cites any minutes now.
I remember Clinton saying that the Russians once offered assistance in capturing bin Laden, but only an idiot would have trusted their plan. (Perhaps you hoped that I had forgotten the details.)
So you’re asking whether Bandar knew about 9/11 or not. I don’t know and I don’t care. What I do know is that after 9/11 Bandar continued funneling money to Al Queda and that Bush always was and still is aware of this and that Bush continues to shower Bandar with a level of praise most normally associated with yuppie parents at an elementary school talent show. Thus, it follows naturally that Bush is okay with terrorism, as long as the terrorists in question give him some money. As for “tin-foil hat territory”, I have provided references to back up everything that I’ve said (unlike some people), so apparently the entire media is in tin-foil hat territory too. Here, have some another cite if it will make you feel better:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/001610.html
And in other news, it looks like you’re desparately attempting to drag this thread away from its original focus, which means, I assume, that you realized how idiotic your OP was. If I had written an OP that bad, I’d probably change subject too. But since you’ve realized the error of your ways, I don’t think I’ll be posting any more unless this train wreck miraculously veers into an intelligent discussion.